New Zealand massacre sparks free-speech debate

DUNEDIN, New Zealand — New Zealanders are debating the limits of free speech after their chief censor banned a 74-page manifesto written by the man accused of slaughtering 50 people at two mosques in the city of Christchurch.

The ban, issued Saturday, means that anybody caught with the document on their computer could face up to 10 years in prison, while anyone caught sending it could face 14 years. Some say the ban goes too far and risks lending both the document and the gunman mystique.

At the same time, many local media organizations are debating whether to even name the Australian charged with murder in the March 15 attacks, 28-year-old Brenton Tarrant, after New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern vowed that she would never mention him by name.

In some ways, Tarrant’s manifesto provides the greatest insight into his character and thinking.

Chief Censor David Shanks said Tarrant’s manifesto contains justifications for acts of tremendous cruelty such as killing children and encourages acts of terrorism, even outlining specific places to target and methods to carry out attacks.

Shanks said that in banning the document, he and his staff worried about drawing more attention to it. But in the end, he said, they decided that they needed to treat it the same way as propaganda from groups such as the Islamic State, which they also have banned.

Shanks had earlier placed a similar ban on the 17-minute live-stream video the killer filmed from a camera mounted on his helmet during the shootings. Shanks said that researchers and journalists could apply for exemptions from both bans.

But although freespeech advocates haven’t questioned banning the graphic video, they said banning the manifesto is a step too far.

“People are more confident of each other and their leaders when there is no room left for conspiracy theories, when nothing is hidden,” said Stephen Franks, a constitutional lawyer and spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition. “The damage and risks are greater from suppressing these things than they are from trusting people to form their own conclusions and to see evil or madness for what it is.”